The Arab World’s chronic disintegration – now in Poznan

International Politics of Natural Resources and the Environment research programme

The Arab World has yet again proved to be an increasingly
empty political construct; this time in the framework of climate politics. The
fault line between the rich Gulf and the poor ‘rest’ was revealed amidst
domination by the OPEC-axis and passive consent by most of the other Arab
states.

The UN Climate Change Conference, which convened in Poznan,
Poland, during the first two weeks of December, managed to draw little interest
of the Arab delegations, some of which arrived only in the second week of
talks and some of which simply did not bother to arrive. Despite the fact that the
Middle East is one of the most vulnerable regions to climate change, there is
still to emerge a common regional voice demanding action. Adaptation will be a
major challenge, due to the already scarce water resources, and, on the
mitigation side, especially the rich Gulf states should urgently start
addressing their exorbitantly high per capita CO2 emissions.

Thus far, the only single strong voice from the Arab World
has been that of Saudi Arabia. This voice is familiar to all observers of UN climate
talks and it carries a clear message: “do not harm our oil industry or else…”

Saudi Arabia, according to most observers, along with its Arab OPEC
allies Kuwait and Qatar, has mostly played a counter-productive role throughout
the history of international climate change negotiations. Instead of perceiving
climate change as a threat to global prosperity and development, Saudi Arabia
sees an ambitious international agreement to cope with climate change as a
threat to its fossil-fuelled economy.

The list of merits is long: influencing the G77+China
agenda, taking advantage of the consensus mechanism, threatening with blocking
other agenda items, bogging down the talks with lengthy addresses and, last but
not least, dominating the Arab World position.

According to Katherine Watts from CAN Europe and Wael Hmaidan from IndyAct, who spoke in a side event in
Poznan, the Saudis have always been vocal while other Arab countries continue
vague in their positions. The Saudi delegation is sizeable, skillful and very
strategic. Other Arab delegations are generally small, which makes it impossible
for them to follow all the agenda items, let alone to push forward with their own
national interests. This is why they are happy to follow the Saudi lead, in a
mixture of fear of being left out and feeling of empowerment.

External pressure on Saudi Arabia to change its position has
been weak: Western NGOs do not feel comfortable criticizing developing
countries. Arab NGOs are few and generally weak and lack capacity.
The recently established Arab
Climate Alliance is a positive exception in the NGO front.

The only possible external pressure that might have an
effect on Saudi behaviour would have to come from the same region, in the form
of a united, constructive and progressive position towards climate change
mitigation. Changes in attitude in many Arab states have been visible on the ground
during the last year or so. However, these feeble signs have not yet transformed
into action in international fora. For example, Abu Dhabi’s declarations of
‘leadership in green energies’ were not met with any substantive action in Poznan.

Some place their hopes on the next Arab League summit in
Kuwait in January, but as long as Kuwait and Qatar continue to perceive themselves as ‘particularly
vulnerable’ countries, as was the case in Poznan, there is little hope for a
common Arab League position.

The role of Saudi Arabia is well known, and so are the
consequences, but so far no country in the region has dared to challenge it. In
a region where looking for scapegoats is a popular distraction, why is everyone
missing this one?

(In the picture: Delegates during the high level segment in the UN Climate Change Conference, Poznan, 11 December 2008)

You write that "the only single strong voice from the Arab World has been that of Saudi Arabia. This voice is familiar to all observers of UN climate talks and it carries a clear message: “do not harm our oil industry or else…” ", what is this "or else..."? Are they ever explicit?

I see that they need to sell oil, so cutting off all exports is basically out of question (It's completely their own fault that their economy is still so oil dependent).Restricting production would cause the price of oil to increase, but we've seen that the market adjusts accordingly. What can the Saudi's credibly threaten to do?

2.1.2009, Mari Luomi

Thank you for the question Charly. The behaviour of Saudi Arabia described above is indeed most explicit. The expression ‘or else’ refers not only to the style with which Saudi Arabia comes through in the UN climate negotiations but also the actual negotiation tactics. Many argue that Saudi Arabia’s long-term strategy in the international climate negotiations is to prevent any meaningful agreement. The tactics include threatening with blocking (and actually blocking) agenda items if items of interest to Saudi Arabia are not approved.

The Saudi style is most visible at the rhetorical level, especially in official statements and speeches. The negotiations themselves mostly take place behind closed doors, but a lot of information is available through reliable secondary sources. This information confirms what is stated in my blog post above.

The most recent example of the style of Saudi rhetorics is the speech of the Saudi Minister of Petroleum, H.E. Mr Al-Naimi from the high level segment of COP-14 in Poznan on 11 December 2008: “… calling for moving away from fossil fuel consumption as a means of addressing climate change does not represent a practical alternative to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly given the availability of technologies for clean energy… “.